Rexnord, Inc. v. Ferris
Decision Date | 18 January 1983 |
Parties | REXNORD, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and Nordberg Manufacturing Company (S.A.) (Pty) Ltd., a South Africa corporation, Petitioners on review, v. Reginald J. FERRIS, Helser Machine Works, Inc., an Oregon corporation, and Reginald J. Ferris and W. Don Miller, doing business as Steton U.S.A., Respondents on review. CA 19104; SC 28419. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Malcolm E. Wheeler, Los Angeles, Cal., argued the cause for petitioners on review. With him on the briefs and the petition were Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, Los Angeles, Cal., and Fredric A. Yerke, James N. Westwood, and Miller Nash, Yerke, Wiener & Hager, Portland.
William E. Hurley, Portland, argued the cause for respondent on review. On the brief were Michael B. Wallstein, and Bernard, Hurley, Crawford & Kneeland, Portland.
Before DENECKE, * C.J., and LENT, LINDE, PETERSON, TANZER, ** and CAMPBELL, JJ.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the defendants seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages. 1 The trial court, sitting without a jury, enjoined the defendants and awarded general damages. Although the trial court found that tortious conduct had been proved of a nature to support an award of punitive damages of $35,000, the court refused to award punitive damages, and instead entered a conclusion of law that "[t]his court is not authorized to award punitive damages, for the reason that a party who seeks injunctive relief cannot also obtain from the same court an award of punitive damages." The plaintiffs appealed, claiming that the scope of the injunction was too narrow and that punitive damages should have been awarded. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 55 Or.App. 127, 637 P.2d 619 (1981).
On review in this court, the plaintiffs have raised only the punitive damages issue. This court has upheld punitive damage awards in actions at law in a variety of situations. See cases cited in 1 Committee on Continuing Legal Education, Oregon State Bar, Damages ch. 4 (rev. ed. 1980); Pedah Company v. Hunt, 265 Or. 433, 509 P.2d 1197 (1973), however, held that punitive damages are not recoverable in an equity suit because "the allowance of punitive damages by a court sitting in equity, without a jury, is inconsistent with a court in equity doing justice between the litigants." 2 We granted review to again consider the Pedah holding. ORCP 24 A permits the joinder of legal and equitable claims. It provides:
"A plaintiff may join in a complaint, either as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims, legal or equitable, as the plaintiff has against an opposing party."
In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to recover general and punitive damages flowing from the defendants' tortious conduct. The plaintiffs proved their cause of action. Aside from constitutional rights to jury trial discussed below, we see no impediment to the award of punitive damages where tortious conduct which would otherwise support an award of punitive damages has been established, even though injunctive relief is sought and granted in the same action. ORCP 24 A expressly permits the joinder of such claims. Although procedural problems may arise akin to those existing before the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure became effective, the joinder of legal and equitable claims is permissible, including claims for punitive damages.
Pedah holds that a court of equity cannot award punitive damages incident to the granting of injunctive relief. It is not clear whether the Pedah holding is limited to an injunction case in which the foundation for the recovery of punitive damages has not otherwise been proved. Inasmuch as the joinder of legal and equitable claims is and was expressly permitted by ORCP 24 A and its predecessor, ORS 16.221(1), where a right to punitive damages has been pleaded and proved, the preferable procedure is to adjudicate fully the dispute in one action.
We hold that if the plaintiff pleads a claim for relief which, if proved, would permit an award of punitive damages; if the plaintiff proves his right to recover punitive damages; and if the court finds that a right to recover punitive damages has been established, the joinder of a request for additional injunctive relief does not prevent a court from awarding both punitive damages and injunctive relief. To the extent that Pedah is inconsistent with this rule, it is overruled. 3
That does not end the inquiry, however. The defendants assert that they were entitled to a jury trial on the punitive damage claim. Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution provides:
"In all civil cases the right of Trial by Jury shall remain inviolate."
Article VII, section 3, of the Oregon Constitution provides:
"In actions at law, where the value and controversy shall exceed $200, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved * * *."
Under the law in effect when these constitutional provisions became effective, a claim for punitive damages would have been asserted in a civil action at law.
The plaintiffs assert that the defendants waived their right to a jury trial, arguing:
(Emphasis in original.)
This case traced an unusual path in the trial court. Evidence was first produced at a hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order. After the hearing the parties entered into a stipulation which was approved by the court and which provided:
"It is hereby stipulated between plaintiffs and defendants through their attorneys that the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction held by this court on July 14, 15, and 16, 1980, shall instead be deemed, treated and regarded for all purposes as a hearing on a permanent injunction, reserving for trial or other disposition at a later date any other issues in the case." (Emphasis in original.)
The record shows this colloquy at a hearing on August 27, 1980. The plaintiffs' attorney stated:
Thereafter, the plaintiffs submitted a memorandum in support of their punitive damage claim. The record suggests that the defendants filed a memorandum on the punitive damages question, but we find none in the file. There was no motion to empanel a jury to decide the damage questions. We find nothing in the record indicating that the defendants objected to the award of punitive damages other than on the Pedah premise that punitive damages are not recoverable when injunctive relief is sought. The defendants never objected to the award of punitive damages or compensatory damages on the ground that they were entitled to have a jury decide that question.
There was a final hearing on November 6, 1980, at which the trial court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nabours v. Longview Sav. & Loan Ass'n
... ... Inc., v. Dr. N. Jay Rogers, 674 S.W.2d 751 (Tex.1984), the defendant committed libel against Dr ... Lamplighters Realty Co., 556 P.2d 1328 (Okla.App.1976); Rexnord, Inc. v. Ferris, 294 Or. 392, 657 P.2d 673 (1983); Hutcherson v. Pilgrim Health & Life Ins. Co., ... ...
-
M.K.F. v. Miramontes
... ... In that regard, quoting from its decision in [352 Or. 418] Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 51011, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959), the Court held that only ... In the first relevant case, Rexnord, Inc. v. Ferris, 294 Or. 392, 657 P.2d 673 (1983), the plaintiffs joined claims for injunctive ... ...
-
Davis v. Tyee Industries, Inc.
... ... at 295, 648 P.2d at 390 ... 11 The motion was properly denied as to the grounds asserted. See Rexnord, Inc. v. Ferris, 294 Or. 392, 396, 657 P.2d 673 (1983) (overruling Pedah Co. v. Hunt, 265 Or. 433, 509 P.2d 1197 (1973)), and Adams v. Crater Well ... ...
-
Klinicki v. Lundgren
... ... 662, 53 USLW 2445 ... F.R. KLINICKI, Petitioner on Review, ... Kim S. LUNDGREN, Berlinair, Inc., an Oregon corporation, and ... Air Berlin Charter Company, an Oregon corporation, ... However, in Rexnord, Inc. v. Ferris, 294 Or. 392, 657 P.2d 673 (1983), decided after the trial in this case, this court ... ...
-
Chapter § 6.3
...to a court trial, and raising the right to jury trial for the first time on appeal); see Rexnord, Inc. v. Ferris, 294 Or 392, 401-03, 657 P2d 673 (1983) ("defendants never claimed that they were entitled to a jury trial" and "a party should not be able to insist upon a jury trial after a ca......